• @jacksilver
    link
    39 months ago

    I get the meme and your response, but you could easily flip this one on its side: “Everybody wants clean air to breathe, yet they need laws to prohibit pollution”

    • @grue
      link
      English
      69 months ago

      That’s an issue of externalities, which doesn’t really apply to my housing argument.

      • Liz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        38 months ago

        The NIMBYS would argue “the character of the neighborhood” would suffer. They’re fucking selfish assholes for it, but it’s an argument.

        • @grue
          link
          English
          88 months ago

          If anything, single-family has worse externalities than high density does. Single-family homes have to be subsidized because they don’t generate enough tax revenue per acre to pay for the amount of infrastructure they require. (Concrete example: if you have a single-family lot with 100’ of street frontage, that one family basically needs to pay enough taxes to maintain 100’ of road. But if you have a 10-plex on the same lot, each household only has to pay enough taxes to maintain 10’ of road.) Single-family is also inherently the least sustainable in terms of both HVAC costs (because every side of the habitable unit is exposed to the environment) and transportation costs (because low density minimizes walkability).

          • Liz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            48 months ago

            Yeah I think pretty much everyone either forgets or doesn’t know that the suburbs are subsidized by the city for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          58 months ago

          except multifamily housing areas are consistently nicer than the average suburban desert

          even the shittiest commie blocks are reasonably okay places to live in and develop some actual sense of community.